Skip to main content

Religious voters and life issues

Mark Movesian, on a blog at First Things, examined the Fox News exit polls from the 2012 election, and found that voters who self-identified as Catholic voted for President Obama 50-48%.

Mr. Movesian notes the seeming oddity of this, given that the Catholic hierarchy has done its very best to make life issues, especially the health care contraceptive mandate, the primary determinant of a Catholic person's vote.

What explains the exit polls? Here are some possibilities.

Movesian suggests that the exit polls do not necessarily mean that Catholic voters, by a narrow majority, reject the Church view of the contraceptive mandate and other reproductive issues. Instead, like other voters, they may have looked at the whole package offered by President Obama and the whole package offered by Mitt Romney and gone for Obama despite whatever reservations they have about life issues.

Another explanation is that Catholic voters, while uncomfortable in general with abortion and contemporary sexual mores, have a more nuanced view of life issues than the Catholic hierarchy-- and the voters preferred nuance over absolutism. I don't think it is a stretch to say that many American Catholics disagree with the Church's view on abortion and contraception. Polls show that a majority of Catholics, consistent with other Americans, are comfortable with abortion in limited circumstances and accept and use contraception widely. The exit polls, discussed below, bear this out.

Furthermore, Catholic voters may see the overall Democratic approach to life issues as more effective and realistic, despite the party's position on abortion, the contraceptive mandate, and other issues. Groups like Catholics for Obama (see this op-ed written by the national co-chairman) are evidence that at least some Catholic voters support a broader practical understanding of what it means to be "pro-life."

The following are some interesting findings from Fox's exit polls:

  • President Obama lost the vote among Protestants (37-62%) and Mormons (21-78%), but among all other voters identifying with a religion, he won (Catholics 50-58%, "Other Christian" 50-49%, and Jewish 69-30%).
  • If one breaks down voters by how often they attend religious services, Mitt Romney won the "weekly" attending vote (39-59%), while President Obama won the "occasionally" vote (55-43%). If attendance habits are in part an indicator of the voter's belief in the official tenets of their religion, this might explain the Catholic vote for Obama.
  • Along these lines: President Obama lost among Catholics who attend mass weekly (42-57%) but won among Catholics who do not attend mass weekly (56-42%). 
  • President Obama lost among white voters (39-59%). Naturally, combining religion and race produces some pretty big differences. President Obama lost the white Catholic vote (40-59%), and had no chance with white evangelical/born-again Christians (21-78%). 
  • Finally, the poll confirmed that Americans broadly support legal abortion. Twenty-nine percent of voters think abortion should be "legal in all cases" while 30% think abortion should be "legal in most cases." Only 13% think abortion should be "illegal in all cases," the official Catholic position. Given that Catholics made up 25% of the voters in this year's election, clearly a large percentage of Catholic voters reject the official doctrine of the Church. 
  • The 59% of voters who support legal abortion in all or most cases went, naturally, for President Obama (all cases: 76-22%; most cases: 58-40%), while those who want abortion to be illegal in most or all cases voted against him (illegal in most cases: 22-76%; illegal in all cases: 19-79%). 
Links:

2012 Fox News Exit Polls

First Thoughts blog at First Things (November 8, 2012): The Catholic Vote and the Contraception Mandate

Op-ed published in The Erie Times-News (my hometown paper) (November 5, 2012): Theologian makes Catholic case for supporting Obama

Catholics for Obama home page

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...